If you’re falling back to the dice thing again, the reason it doesn’t even seem like a point to me is because they’ve literally put other variants in as optional rules that people are perfectly welcome to try.
3e Unearthed Arcana was one of my all-time favorite books. On page 132 you have bell curve dice rolls with notes about how that changes the game. There’s also players roll all the dice, which is always an interesting consideration. In chapter 4 there’s also some interesting sections for using armor as a form of mitigation rather than avoidance and injury/vitality/wound systems. It’s a fantastic resource for basically any game just for introducing how certain concepts would shake up the system.
My own fantasy heart breaker used a linear d20, but had breakpoints for miss, glancing, hit, critical hit that was modeled around bell curve dice rolls. That’s sort of why I immediately discount your comment about preferring multiple dice and different outcomes, you can represent it multiple ways. Map any curve to d100, or further if you need it to be more granular, you can do what “feels” good and has human usable heuristics… but it’s not necessarily different. Saying “I prefer dice pools” to d20 doesn’t really mean a lot useful to me. Also to go back a bit, the number of states for the d20 in 3e originally was actually more broad than it’s typically used in 4e with more variance on critical threat range, automatic hit or miss, miss, and then modifiers like power attack and the gamble inherent in that… which are all interesting… but can be quite wonky.
Another perspective from one of your earlier statements, mapping rules to story, I think it often goes unsaid that this can cut two ways. Sometimes people are using a game to tell the story they want to tell, other times the game is telling you the story. Not really here nor there, but I think a lot of D&D was predicated on the latter, but people often thought it was designed for the former (hense why you get novel-in-adventures like Dragonlance).